Hiroshima. Three Mile Island. Cherynobyl. Since the advent of the Atomic Age in the 1940s, catastrophic events such as these have caused the general public to develop a deep-rooted fear of radiation. The new threats brought about by the specter of terrorism, particularly the concept of the radiological dispersion bomb (aka “dirty bomb”), have only increased this “radiophobia.” Such threats are indeed real and we must constantly take precautions to prevent such attacks. But we also have a moral and civic duty to prepare ourselves, both physically and – even more importantly – psychologically, should such an attack take place on our homeland.
In fact, the true power of such a device lies not in its ability to spread radiation but in its ability to spread panic and fear. In order to defuse this anxiety we need to develop an awareness of the myths and realities about radiation exposure:
Myth: Like nuclear weapons, the real danger posed by dirty bombs is the fallout from the radiation.
Reality: It's true that RDBs are like nuclear weapons in one respect – the threat is due more to the blast than to the radiation fallout. A dirty bomb is a simply a conventional explosive that has been laced with a radioactive material in order to contaminate a wide area. Becasue of the devastating effects of a bomb blast, the explosive material in such a bomb would most likely be far more dangerous than the nuclear material it contained. The destructive power and spread of radioactive material, however, would ultimately depend on both the size of the conventional bomb and the volume and nature of the nuclear material. But as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission points out, a dirty bomb is in no way similar to a nuclear weapon. The presumed purpose of its use would not be as a Weapon of Mass Destruction but rather as a Weapon of Mass Disruption. (1)
Myth: The detonation of a dirty bomb would lead to radiation exposure, which in itself is always harmful.
Reality: The truth is that we’re exposed to radiation every day. In the U.S., the unit of measurement for exposure of radiation on human tissue is known as a “rem”, an acronym for "Roentgen equivalent, man.” (Just as the rest of the world uses the metric system, they also use another unit of exposure known as a Sievert (Sv). The conversion is 100 rem = 1 Sv.) Most exposure, however, is so low that it is measured in millirem (mrem). (1000 mrem = 1 rem)
Natural radiation contributes about 82% of the annual dose to the population with medical procedures (i.e., X-rays) contributing the remaining 18%. This produces a total annual average radiation exposure of 360 mrem (3.6 mSv). Both natural and artificial radiations affect us in the same way so exposure limits can be measued together. The OSHA standard for workers who deal with radioactive material in the course of their job is 5 rem (50 mSv) per year. (2)
Myth: The radiation fallout from a dirty bomb would be much greater than normal exposure limits.
Reality: It depends on what source of radioactive material is used. The most likely scenario would involve readily available material such as cesium-137 (which is used in nuclear medicine) or cobalt-60 (which is used in food irradiation). Strontium-90, which is found in abandoned portable thermoelectric generators in the former Soviet Union, would be a greater threat, though it is likely the terrorist would die from exposure while transporting such material.
A dirty bomb made of the more powerful cobalt-60 would only deliver an average dose of a few tenths of a rem for people within a half-mile radius, less than that delivered by a CT exam of the head (1,100 mrem).(3) Such an exposure is extremely unlikely to cause long-term harm much less death or radiation sickness.
Myth: Long term exposure to even low doses of radiation can cause cancer and birth defects.
Reality: The Health Physics Society, a professional organization comprised of over 6,000 radiation safety professionals, has advised against calculating risk from exposure to low levels of radiation (less than 10 rem). The International Council on Radiation Protection (ICRP) has similarly advised against calculating risk to populations when the highest-exposed person in that population receives a small dose. “[The conclusions about cancer rates] are based on the use of a concept called 'collective dose,' the concept that exposing a large number of people to very low levels of radiation will result in a certain number of cancer deaths," says Andrew Karam, radiation safety officer of the University of Rochester. "By analogy, we can say that throwing one small stone at each of a million people will result in crushing one or two people because the combined weight of all the stones adds up to a ton, which is enough to crush someone." (4)
Myth: After the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the levels of cancer increased significantly.
Reality: The residents of these cities were exposed to different levels of radiation based on how far they were from the hypocenter of the blast. The survivors who were closest to the blast (within 2.4 -2.6 km of the hypocenter) were exposed to does of .5 rem (5 mSv) and 20 rem (200 mSv). (.5 rem is the yearly exposure limit applied by OSHA for pregnant women.) The average dose received by the group of survivors is considered to be about 20 rem (200 mSv), which is four times the average annual dose allowed for radiation workers by OSHA.
A longitudinal study of the atomic-bomb survivors found that from 1950-1990, there were 4,863 total cancer-related deaths, of which 428 (9%) were attributed to radiation exposure. While the increase is not insignificant, it is unlikely that a RDB or even a “suitcase nuke” would be able to lead to an exposure that was even remotely in that range. (5)
Myth: After the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the levels of birth defects increased significantly.
Reality: Efforts to detect genetic effects were begun in the late 1940s. So far, no evidence of genetic effects of radiation exposure has been found. (5)
Myth: An dirty bomb attack would be as devastating as the 1986 Chernobyl accident or the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island.
Reality: First, let’s dismiss some of the misperceptions about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in the former Soviet Union was one of the worst nuclear disasters in history. Due to faulty design and operator error, an accident occurred in the reactor core which allowed the release of radioactive gas and dust particles which was carried throughout Russia, the Ukraine, and parts of Europe. (6)
During the initial accident, 31 emergency workers died trying to bring the disaster under control (28 died of radiation poisoning) while 203 more people were immediately hospitalized. No other deaths were attributed to the accident and there is little evidence that it lead to long-term harm.
In fact, about the only documented health consequence of the accident has been an increase in thyroid cancer in children. According to the 2000 UNSCEAR report, some 1800 cases of thyroid cancers have occurred in about 18 million individuals who were exposed as children during the Chernobyl accident. Fortunately, thyroid cancer is treatable and, if detected earlier enough, is not fatal. (7)
Although many people might assume that the site is a radioactive ghost town, it is home to a rotating staff of 6,000 specialists and technicians. Forty documentaries have also been shot on location and a new zombie movie, "Return of the Living Dead 4: Necropolis", is scheduled to for on-location filming. (8)
The meltdown at Three Mile Island was, in comparison to Chernobyl, a rather minor event. Unfortunately, the accident occurred twelve days after the release of the conspiracy/disaster movie “The China Syndrome.” Because the meltdown coincided with a Hollywood production about an a conspiracy to cover-up an accident at a nuclear power plant, the public reaction was completely out of proportion to the actual danger of the meltdown.
Detailed studies of the radiological consequences of the accident concluded that that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 mrem, less than the exposure during a routine chest X-ray.
Sources:
(1) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Fact Sheet on Dirty Bombs
(2) Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Managment, "Facts About Radiation"
(3) Idaho State University, Radiation Information Network's "Radiation and Risk"
(4) American Institute of Physics, "Dirty Bombs" Much More Likely to Create Fear than Cause Cancer"
(5) Radiation Effects Research Foundation, "Frequently Asked Questions about the Atomic-bomb Survivor Research Program"
(6) UNSCEAR 1988 Report
(7) The International Atomic Energy Agency, “Chernobyl +15: Thyroid Cancer Effects in Children"
(8) CNN.com, “Zombie movie filming at Chernobyl
(9) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Fact Sheet on the Accident at Three Mile Island”
1
Great article, good point: even a serious problem has limits, there are good responses.
One tiny nit. Isn't REM short for "roentgen equivalent, man"? I seem to recall that the unit's name was derived from a measurement for radioactivity designed by a scientist named Roentgen; the measurements of safe exposure for various organisms were done in terms of the roentgen, hence so many rems, millirems, etc.
I enjoy the site a lot. Cheers!
PGE
2
Joe-
"Although many people might assume that the site is a radioactive ghost town..."
You mean, like this?
"a new zombie movie... is scheduled to for on-location filming."
The impression this statement gives is that there will be actors and stage hands wandering the dusty fields and streets of Chernobyl. Your own link explains that they are taking background footage from the back of a moving vehicle... probably shots like this or this.
I did think you were full of it on the actual numbers of fatalities... until I googled "Chernobyl death toll" and found these articles.
posted on 10.04.2004 4:50 AM4
Thanks, gaw, for some breathless photographs. The house reminded me of my apartment house in the beloved undergraduate days. Note that your 2004 reference says "Some 31 people were killed, and there have since been around ten deaths from thyroid cancer apparently due to the accident. An authoritative UN report in 2000 concluded that there is no scientific evidence of any significant radiation-related health effects to most people exposed."
I suggest, however, that if one wishes to actually learn something about Chernobyl, one of the best sites is:
http://www.eh.doe.gov/health/ihp/chernobyl/chernobyl.html
posted on 10.04.2004 6:33 AM5
The exposure to direct radiation from the material in question is less a problem than the inhalation of said material or the consumption of said material in contaminated food. That is why a dirty bomb can be so effective. In this case however it is proportional to the amount of radioactive material in the original bomb. So if they were able to eject one ton of radioactive material (highly highly unlikely) they could effectively create a mini-Chernobyl event (50 tons). In other words, it is much more than a psychological problem.
For those who think there have been no ill effect of the Chernobyl accident, I suggest you go to:
http://www.chernobyl-children.org.uk/index.html
Rates of thyroid cancer in the surround area is up 100 times. Rates of birth defects are significantly higher in these regions as well. If you think that's still a bunch of B.S. then try and sit through this:
posted on 10.04.2004 7:11 AM6
Joe are you trying to be inconsistent:
No other deaths were attributed to the accident and there is little evidence that it lead to long-term harm...In fact, about the only documented health consequence of the accident has been an increase in thyroid cancer in children.
A 100 times increase in thyroid cancer is "no long term harm." Tell me what you consider to be long term harm then? The seven fold increase in birth defects after the accident is no long term harm? The significant increase in the rate of genetic mutatation is no long term harm?
http://www.nrpb.org/publications/bulletin/no1/article5.htm
posted on 10.04.2004 7:26 AM7
Pgepps,
Isn't REM short for "roentgen equivalent, man"?
You’re absolutely right. I should have checked my notes on that one instead of relying on my memory. Thanks for the correction.
GAW,
Joe: "Although many people might assume that the site is a radioactive ghost town..."
GAW: You mean, like this?
Great photos. Unfortunately, the whole story is a fraud. The LA Times story ("Account of Chernobyl Trip Takes Web Surfers for a Ride") isn't available on the website but you can find the text of it here. The fact that the nuclear plant didn't shut down until 1993 -- seven years after the accident -- should have raised more than a few suspicions about the town being completely abandoned.
While it’s true that most of the area is deserted, it's mainly due to a lack of jobs in the area. Other than the scientists that work there about the biggest business in the area is catering to the tourists.
Of course, it wasn’t exactly like it was a boomtown before the disaster. In 1986, the total population in the region was 100,000 with 12,000 living in Chernobyl.
posted on 10.04.2004 7:38 AM8
as long as they don't drop them in america, who cares?
posted on 10.04.2004 7:50 AM9
as long as they don't drop them in america, who cares?
Sadly tommy, that's the position that's coming across from most of this board on the discussion so far.
posted on 10.04.2004 7:53 AM10
Moderate,
A 100 times increase in thyroid cancer is "no long term harm." Tell me what you consider to be long term harm then?
Harmful effects that lead to fatalities or that cannot be treated with modern medical practices. Thyroid cancer is certainly a problem; no one is disputing that fact. But I imagine that most people think the consequences were far graver than that.
The significant increase in the rate of genetic mutatation is no long term harm?
You probably should have read the article you linked to. You might have noticed it said:
In addition, previous attempts to demonstrate excess minisatellite and other mutations in post-Chernobyl irradiated FSU populations and workers using molecular techniques have proved negative.
The incident that caused the “genetic mutation” in the article was due to exposure of radiation that was twice the amount of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
By the way, no one is saying that radiation isn’t harmful. But we need to keep it in perspective and recognize that the dosage we could be exposed to is far less than a Hirshima or Chernobyl.
posted on 10.04.2004 7:56 AM11
You probably should have read the article you linked to. You might have noticed it said:
Wasn't the point of bringing that up that this was the first study to conclusively show this problem? Science moves forward Joe.
By the way, no one is saying that radiation isn’t harmful. But we need to keep it in perspective and recognize that the dosage we could be exposed to is far less than a Hirshima or Chernobyl.
I'm not saying that a dirty bomb going off in NYC will make NYC a ghost town. I am pointing out that there will be real and not just psychological effects of such a device being detonated.
There would also be a similar effect with the release of nuclear material from the BB in the previous discussion. I submit that the South Koreans should be the one who decide if nuclear weapons are used to collapse DMZ tunnels, not the United States. Again, why not simply collapse the entrances with normal BB's and get rid of the nuclear equation? Are there any other uses for these nuclear BB's? Would they have been used on Saddam's bunkers in Baghdad? I wonder how much more the Iraqi people would have loved us if they found out we deployed nuclear fission devices in their capital.
posted on 10.04.2004 8:27 AM12
Joe,
Yes Three Mile Island is overblown.
Did you actually read the article debunking the Chernobyl site? They are saying that the woman on the site could not have possibly ridden a motorcycle through the "dead zone." You need to be in an enclosed vehicle because the dust raise would overexpose a motorcyclist easily. They are not saying that there is no dead zone.
Many others have pointed out that the real problem with dirty bombs is not direct exposure but subsequent exposure to contaminated materials through inhalation or ingestion. Remember radioactive materials that are most harmless outside are most harmful inside.
Anyway the one thing you really need to cover, but don't, is dispersion. Spreading the radioactive material around effectively takes a lot more than just wrapping high explosive in some radium. It involves engineering an effective delivery method from the ground up.
posted on 10.04.2004 8:42 AM13
By the way, no one is saying that radiation isn’t harmful. But we need to keep it in perspective and recognize that the dosage we could be exposed to is far less than a Hirshima or Chernobyl.
I've tried to make this point several times to folks who tend to confuse a nuclear detonation with a radiation threat.
If you're a smoker, your odds of dying from smoking are far, far, higher than the odds of dying from the low exposure likely in most dirty bomb scenarios (Or from a terrorist attack for that matter).
14
Jeff,
Many others have pointed out that the real problem with dirty bombs is not direct exposure but subsequent exposure to contaminated materials through inhalation or ingestion. Remember radioactive materials that are most harmless outside are most harmful inside.
True enough. We should also note, however, that the dose of radiation that is taken into the lungs of smoker is estimated to be 16,000 millirems/year. Yet I have no doubt, though, that if these same smokers heard that a bomb went off that exposed them to 16 millirem they would go into a panic.
posted on 10.04.2004 10:25 AM15
Great articles today and yesterday. IIRC, nuclear power accounts for ~20% of US power generation; I wish the mistaken "everything nuclear is too dangerous" fear had not blocked getting that number up near 100%.
Out of curiosity; the two quotes below seem to be contradictory. Am I missing something?
"OSHA standard for workers ... radioactive material ... is 5 rem / year"
and
"20 rem ... the average annual dose allowed for radiation workers by OSHA."
16
Anon,
Out of curiosity; the two quotes below seem to be contradictory. Am I missing something?
Thanks for catching that. The second statement should read: "...which is four times the average annual dose allowed for radiation workers by OSHA."
I corrected it in the original post.
posted on 10.04.2004 11:24 AM17
The immediate health danger of dirty bombs has always been overblown -- this is not news (or rocket science).
The threat of dirty bombs is in contamination of unpredictable swaths of property -- and the understandable refusal of workers to occupy buildings that may be contaminated, even if the business-friendly EPA claims they're safe.
But frankly, I think all this talk about dirty bombs is a distraction from the greater and more realistic threat of suitcase nukes.
If Al Qaeda did in fact get its hands on some of Russia'a 80 allegedly missing suitcase nukes, then AQ and its offshoots could blow up large parts of America. Each of these blasts would easily kill a hundred thousand people immediately from blast and fire, with hundreds of thousands more dying later from burns and from the enormous quantities of fallout caused by ground-level detonations.
posted on 10.04.2004 11:38 AM18
I'm aware this is the DOE's party line about dirty bombs--but i would strongly urge you to read some of the reports of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and even PBS about the dangers posed by dirty bombs under certain circumstances--they are far more deadly than your article suggests
posted on 10.04.2004 1:06 PM19
William,
I'm aware this is the DOE's party line about dirty bombs--but i would strongly urge you to read some of the reports of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and even PBS about the dangers posed by dirty bombs under certain circumstances--they are far more deadly than your article suggests.
Actually, the FAS only has one article on dirty bombs. I don’t mean to be overly dismissive but their work is rather incomplete.
For example, they provide a model for a dirty bomb made of 10 lbs of TNT and medical grade cesium. How much cesium? “[T]he amount of cesium that was discovered recently abandoned in North Carolina,…” Are they implying that their model required the bomb to use all 19 sources of the material that was discovered? If so, the problem with that idea is that the terrorists would have died of radiation poisoning before the bomb went off. Any less, though, and their model falls apart.
They also claim that “The initial passing of the radioactive cloud would be relatively harmless, and no one would have to evacuate immediately. However, residents of an area of about five city blocks, if they remained, would have a one-in-a-thousand chance of getting cancer.”
What do they base this on? Who knows. They don’t list the rem exposures so it's impossible to determine how they arrived at their conclusions. Their estimates are also way out of line withe the ne extra cancer per 100,000 people risk that most experts agree on.
As for the PBS/NOVA documentary on dirty bombs, I watched it as part of my my radiation safety class. While they do claim that a cobalt-60 bomb would causes significant levels of exposure, I don’t think there is anything else in the program that would disagree with my conclusions.
posted on 10.04.2004 1:55 PM20
Mr. Moderate:
Recent figures on the risk of dying from thyroid cancer in the US shows the probability to be roughly 0.000006, So, if the risk rises 100 times, it's 0.00006.
If you're worried about risks like that, better stay off the bicycle and in bed.
posted on 10.04.2004 6:36 PM21
There's a whole social psychological literature on risk perception. Various aspects of a risk, such as unfamiliarity and lack of personal control, may make it much scarier to people than actual statistics warrant. That's why we still drive cars in spite of the thousands of deaths annually caused by auto accidents, while many obsess about things like pesticides and alleged risks from cellphones and high-tension wires.
Although still a subject of controversy between greenies and industry spokesmen, the "Alar scare" is an example of a relatively minor (or if you believe the debunkers, effectively nonexistent) carcinogen that caused a panic.
Although some level of risk does exist, the perceived risks of radiationn to health are probably several orders of magnitude higher than the real ones. One has to cut through the psychological distortion to get at the real story. Not an easy thing to do. There are constituencies for hysteria. Is there one for rational analysis?
posted on 10.05.2004 4:19 AM22
Broken link on risk perception in last comment. Let's hope this works better.
If it doesn't, google "Paul Slovic" and "risk."
posted on 10.05.2004 4:23 AM23
I've added longer discussion of this to my own blog.
posted on 10.05.2004 5:45 AM24
>If you're worried about risks like that, better
>stay off the bicycle and in bed.
Better stay out of bed, too. Ever hear the phrase "died in his sleep"?
posted on 10.05.2004 7:18 PM